Flaglady47: Same difference.
Do either of you know what distributism is?
Personally, I think it is a massively utopian, but it is virtually the exact opposite of socialism.
Distributism ... is centered on the widest possible ownership of property as the best guarantee of political and economic freedom. A family that owns its own land or its own tools can make its own way in the world without being dependent on someone else for a “job.” Thus, Distributism seeks to extend property ownership to as many as possible, and end the concentration of ownership by few capitalists or state officials.
It is still your centralized gov’t giving away YOUR property (if you fit into their definition of rich) to the masses. In other words, just another form of socialism by another name. It’s not quite communism which takes away ownership of property in favor of the “commune”. Fits better with socialism, where the State decides who will own what, and who will have power, or won’t. Not a perfect fit, but close enough.
“The use of force is what distinguishes socialism from Christian charity.”
“Do you know what distributism is? “
Distributism is an economic theory, based on a opinion of how things should be, rather than how they are. It proposes an ideal of small landowners and small business; small cooperatives and small communes (like that of religious communities). You called it utopian.
Within economics, there is a distinction between Normative (how things should be) vs. Descriptive analysis. Distributism is Normative. It is very vague on how such a system would be implemented and maintained. In reality, Economies of scale exist, and people naturally diverge into rich and poor, based on talent, effort, luck and so on.
The unspoken result of Distributism, is the need for enforcement to establish and maintain it (like Socialism or Communism). It is not a natural economic order.
Any economy needs some enforcement to prevent crime, but when you start with forcible redistribution, you establish the basis for tyranny and corruption. Without redistribution, Distributism would not remain stable, as the successful would naturally grow very rich and concentrate assets.. Like Socialism or Communism, Distributism requires a “corrective” to human nature’s personal ambitions and desires (liberty) to exist in reality.
Because Distributism is vague and not based on rigorous logic, it can easily be co-opted off to one side or the other. So you can take Distributism toward a free market direction by seeking to only encourage and protect small business, minimizing infringment on the liberty and property rights of the successful; or you could evolve Distibutism toward more activist (eventually tyrannical) Government, to cut down and dictate to the successful.
It is pretty clear which way Pope Francis is leading - toward greater Government intervention, to dictate economic distribution.
National Socialist (Nazi) economics for example maintained private ownership of property, and rhetorically encouraged “Back to the Land” and “Blood and Soil” like the early Distributist ideal of small farmers. Distributism is vague enough to be interpreted toward such an extreme, or toward an Anarchist interpretation. It is not really a coherent system, just a loose collection of preferences.